Trends in Air to Air Combat

[VMFA187]

15 hours ago, pbar said:

I thought it was Congress who forced this all-the-services-by-the-same-jet on us, not the USMC. 

I was more apologizing for the request for a requirement that likely won't ever be incredibly useful, at the expense of so many other vital aspects critical to fighter performance and capabilities.

[tk1313]

20 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

I was more apologizing for the request for a requirement that likely won't ever be incredibly useful, at the expense of so many other vital aspects critical to fighter performance and capabilities.

Less F-35's and more supers... As a legacy hornet driver I can't imagine you disagree.

[VMFA187]

12 minutes ago, tk1313 said:

Less F-35's and more supers... As a legacy hornet driver I can't imagine you disagree.

The Marine Corps not purchasing any Supers is why we are hurting so bad now.

But yes - Some of those advanced Super Hornet models look pretty amazing.

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

The Marine Corps not purchasing any Supers is why we are hurting so bad now.

But yes - Some of those advanced Super Hornet models look pretty amazing.

Word.

Circling back to the original subject of this thread, substantially improved existing designs in lieu of an all 5th Gen fleet, seem to be popular to our two realistic peer AFs, China & Russia.  

Perhaps it is time to take a page from their playbook as our budget doesn't seem to be able cover that and all the other missions / systems we have or need to do.

 

[Danny Noonin]

Word.
Circling back to the original subject of this thread, substantially improved existing designs in lieu of an all 5th Gen fleet, seem to be popular to our two realistic peer AFs, China & Russia.  
Perhaps it is time to take a page from their playbook as our budget doesn't seem to be able cover that and all the other missions / systems we have or need to do.
 

If you want us to follow their playbook, then clearly you must be suggesting we invest in huge numbers of modern, mobile double-digit type SAM systems that we can overlap into a giant super mez to protect our forces.

Does that mean we have to begin any future conflict with a massive land invasion to take all the ground we'll need to set up our SAMs on their dirt so we can execute IAW their playbook? Innovative idea. We'll also have to secure large numbers of their airfields to operate our hoards of non-5th gen fighters IAW their playbook.

Or maybe the commie playbooks are different than ours for more complex reasons than just budget.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

Does that mean we have to begin any future conflict with a massive land invasion to take all the ground we'll need to set up our SAMs on their dirt so we can execute IAW their playbook? Innovative idea. We'll also have to secure large numbers of their airfields to operate our hoards of non-5th gen fighters IAW their playbook.

In that case, we can annex Vancouver or build some fake Islands near Curaçao and no one will do anything about it. Fight's on!

Kidding.

[Clark Griswold]

47 minutes ago, Danny Noonin said:

If you want us to follow their playbook, then clearly you must be suggesting we invest in huge numbers of modern, mobile double-digit type SAM systems that we can overlap into a giant super mez to protect our forces.

Does that mean we have to begin any future conflict with a massive land invasion to take all the ground we'll need to set up our SAMs on their dirt so we can execute IAW their playbook? Innovative idea. We'll also have to secure large numbers of their airfields to operate our hoards of non-5th gen fighters IAW their playbook.

Or maybe the commie playbooks are different than ours for more complex reasons than just budget.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said take a page not copy and follow the whole thing.

Like it or not we may have hit "peak fighter" with our 5th Gens not only being deadly to the enemy but to their own forces by their relentless consumption of resources to the detriment of everything else that might need sustainment, upgrade or replacement.  

Some people like to crow that we spent the Soviets into oblivion with SDI and the 80's build up but in a way we're doing that to ourselves by a non-stop obsession with the absolute best or nothing.  There is a point when you say that is just too much to do it that way.

We've been here before with other airplanes from way back in the day, ref. the XB-70 Valkyrie and the XF-108 Rapier, both the pinnacles of design for their times in their mission types but the AF realized (wisely) that it can't spend the lion's share of the team's salary on one player.  We cancelled the programs and thought about how to accomplish those missions better not just focusing on what will fly/fight in them.

I'm not saying that in the USAF, USN, USMC, etc... pilots flying a multi-role strike aircraft have to be in some barely relevant old POS, what am saying is that the core aircraft(s) of Tactical Aviation by the sheer number of aircraft to be bought can not be so expensive to procure, operate and maintain that they degrade the Total Joint Team.

[Clark Griswold]

Excellent WOR article on Hi-Lo strategy:

Rethinking the High-Low Mix, Part II: Complexity’s Death Spiral

[Danny Noonin]

I said take a page not copy and follow the whole thing.

Like it or not we may have hit "peak fighter" with our 5th Gens not only being deadly to the enemy but to their own forces by their relentless consumption of resources to the detriment of everything else that might need sustainment, upgrade or replacement.  

Some people like to crow that we spent the Soviets into oblivion with SDI and the 80's build up but in a way we're doing that to ourselves by a non-stop obsession with the absolute best or nothing.  There is a point when you say that is just too much to do it that way.

We've been here before with other airplanes from way back in the day, ref. the XB-70 Valkyrie and the XF-108 Rapier, both the pinnacles of design for their times in their mission types but the AF realized (wisely) that it can't spend the lion's share of the team's salary on one player.  We cancelled the programs and thought about how to accomplish those missions better not just focusing on what will fly/fight in them.

I'm not saying that in the USAF, USN, USMC, etc... pilots flying a multi-role strike aircraft have to be in some barely relevant old POS, what am saying is that the core aircraft(s) of Tactical Aviation by the sheer number of aircraft to be bought can not be so expensive to procure, operate and maintain that they degrade the Total Joint Team.

 

5th gen isn't bankrupting us Clark. Massive recap combined with expanding missions are what's bankrupting us.

 

We're not just buying 5th gen fighters, we're recapping most everything both simultaneously and at the same time...F-35, B-21, KC-46, T-X, CRH, plus looking to "re-host" capes like JSTARS, EC-130, maybe AWACS, etc. We're recapping all of that now because we stiffarmed it for far too long and now we can't push it off any longer.

 

Now throw in the rising emphasis on space and cyber. Do you have any idea how much it costs just to launch a satellite, let alone design/build/operate? The numbers are staggering. And they want tons more money too.

 

F-35 is about $95M right now...still at low rate production prices so that will continue to fall. Your suggested "significantly improved" 4th gen concept would easily be $80M. Easily. Hell, the POS Gripen brought up earlier in this thread is $60+. And it's useless.

 

SECDEF Gates once gave a speech in which he highlighted that America has 11 carriers and the next closest nation has 1. It was a ing useless comparison and embarrassing for our boss to make. Unless we plan to refight Midway with carrier vs carrier battles. We fight away games. That's what we do. Sometimes that means we have to bring our runways with us. The numbers of enemy carriers have nothing to do with the numbers we need. Just as the commie mix of 5th/4th gen has nothing to do with the mix we need on our side.

 

But you're absolutely right. We can't afford to buy everything high end. But don't get sucked in to uninformed arguments that a high-low mix weighted low will work for us. Because in case I didn't mention it, we fight away games. In many potential fights, there won't be enough runways in the AOR for us to park hoards of airplanes and even if there were, we would not have enough tankers to gas them up. Each airplane has to be a "force multiplier". I hate that phrase but it's true. We could be 2/4 v lots and we'll be dodging sophisticated air defenses. Every sortie has to count. If you don't understand how 4th gen has limited game in many realistic scenarios, you are behind the curve.

 

To paraphrase Mobile Holmes, If we're not going to have an Air Force that can hold targets at risk anywhere on the globe, then why have an Air Force at all? That's our job. We need the tools to do that. Those tools are expensive but they can be applied to lower end fights even though it's not ideal. The reverse cannot be said for 4th gen in the same way.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ram]

Danny Noonin is right the fuck on and 100% right.

 

I'll add this:  Just by having the CAPABILITY to win away games, we secure peace and stability for the world.  Make no mistake, the resurgence from Russia and China's near-annexation of the South China Sea aren't randomly occurring at the same time.  Both of those nations know that our superiority margin is rapidly shrinking, and they're gaining confidence that they can hold their own on their own court.

 

This means a more dangerous 21st Century.  Peace dividend was a farce.

[Clark Griswold]

21 hours ago, Danny Noonin said:

5th gen isn't bankrupting us Clark. Massive recap combined with expanding missions are what's bankrupting us.

Not too quibble with you but I didn't say bankrupt but it is my opinion that it is has a disproportionate place in our acquisition strategy.  Its growth in budget and slip in schedule has been tolerated too much, just my two cents.

No argument that growth in new missions and the bow wave of recap which is really the chickens of coming home to roost for years of poor acquisition strategy and execution.  I am an advocate for shedding certain missions/core functions as they detract from what should be our focus on air & space power projection, cyber is awesome but beyond a certain level of organic capability it probably should be in a separate institution, that's not just for the AF but all branches of the military.

20 hours ago, Danny Noonin said:

Now throw in the rising emphasis on space and cyber. Do you have any idea how much it costs just to launch a satellite, let alone design/build/operate? The numbers are staggering. And they want tons more money too.

I do.  As Carl Sagan would say billions and billions and I would say that Space Superiority and all the missions from that core function rate higher or should on our acquisitions strategy.  How that displaces the air acquisition is messy but probably necessary.

20 hours ago, Danny Noonin said:

SECDEF Gates once gave a speech in which he highlighted that America has 11 carriers and the next closest nation has 1. It was a ing useless comparison and embarrassing for our boss to make. Unless we plan to refight Midway with carrier vs carrier battles. We fight away games. That's what we do. Sometimes that means we have to bring our runways with us. The numbers of enemy carriers have nothing to do with the numbers we need. Just as the commie mix of 5th/4th gen has nothing to do with the mix we need on our side.

Would not count that as a face palm moment for SECDEF Gates' comment.  It was not out of touch but an observation on our force structure and a public question to ask the leadership and military strategy community to think if that truly still what is needed.  

If this were the late 30's and a Secretary of War publicly questioned the penchant of the USN for battleships versus aircraft carriers, prevailing opinion would have chided him but he would have been prescient.  

If a concept, doctrine or strategy is correct or wise it should be defensible enough to withstand public comment.  If we don't challenge our assumptions we are susceptible to delude ourselves or ignore changing operational/strategic conditions.

21 hours ago, Danny Noonin said:

But you're absolutely right. We can't afford to buy everything high end. But don't get sucked in to uninformed arguments that a high-low mix weighted low will work for us...       ... Every sortie has to count. If you don't understand how 4th gen has limited game in many realistic scenarios, you are behind the curve.

Agreed but I would also caution not to get distracted by what we should focus on being high end, the platform or the weapons they deliver?  Would our finite resources be better spent on more advanced weapons or platforms?  Honest question.  As pilots we are naturally inclined to think the airplane but as military officers we have to step back and question our biases.

Also, perhaps High Low Mix isn't the right term with the 4+ fighters Low doesn't seem right to describe them.

21 hours ago, Danny Noonin said:

To paraphrase Mobile Holmes, If we're not going to have an Air Force that can hold targets at risk anywhere on the globe, then why have an Air Force at all? 

Yes, but how do you do that?  Pardon my inference but I think you are implying that we have to have the ability from an aircraft to deliver ordinance to any target no matter the environment.  That may be a bridge too far in some cases now but that same mission might be more appropriately performed with new technology, like a hypersonic missile.  

No disagreement that we need the capability but I think we need to recognize how we deliver the capability is changing.

[brabus]

Would our finite resources be better spent on more advanced weapons or platforms? 

We're doing both; There is a ton of money, time, and effort put into weapons.  Advanced weapons require in many cases advanced platforms to get them to the target.  You can't just slap X weapon on a Viper and call it good to go for WW3.

[HossHarris]

Well you COULD. .... it just wouldn't be as sexy. 

Reference archers/pythons on everything that can limp into the air. 

[brabus]

You cannot for a lot of things. I'm not talking about pythons slapped on random jets. It's not about sexy, it's about an aircraft capabilities limit. One that could only, with very low prob of success, maybe be made good enough, but for so much money and "re-engineering" you just made the F-35 the cheaper option. 

Edited March 24, 2017 by brabus

[busdriver]

On 3/23/2017 at 9:14 PM, Clark Griswold said:

That may be a bridge too far in some cases now but that same mission might be more appropriately performed with new technology, like a hypersonic missile.  

Clark, we've been diverting acquisition money from now capabilities to put towards the new hotness that's just around the corner for years.  The result is we don't have enough capacity in the now column.

[brabus]

35 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Clark, we've been diverting acquisition money from now capabilities to put towards the new hotness that's just around the corner for years.  The result is we don't have enough capacity in the now column.

Is the new hotness spending really the root cause, or is the root cause that we get involved in every fucking square inch of this world, overcommit ourselves continuously, and continue to execute losing strategy while blowing billions in the process?  I won't blame the new hotness until we stop fucking around and decide to win when we commit forces. 

For the record, I'm all for killing assholes elsewhere so we don't have to do it here, but the dumbassery that abounds around the world in the DOD is a far bigger problem than future capability spending.

[SurelySerious]

Is the new hotness spending really the root cause, or is the root cause that we get involved in every ing square inch of this world, overcommit ourselves continuously, and continue to execute losing strategy while blowing billions in the process?  I won't blame the new hotness until we stop ing around and decide to win when we commit forces. 

Calling whatever we're doing a "strategy" is generous.

[brabus]

Just now, SurelySerious said:

Calling whatever we're doing a "strategy" is generous.

Exactly.

[busdriver]

I was referring to taking money planned to by X and diverting half to put towards Y. Repeat that decision when Z is right around the corner. It's not really that simple, but it never is.

[Clark Griswold]

On 3/23/2017 at 10:01 PM, brabus said:

We're doing both; There is a ton of money, time, and effort put into weapons.  Advanced weapons require in many cases advanced platforms to get them to the target.  You can't just slap X weapon on a Viper and call it good to go for WW3.

No argument, it has to be more than 4th gen 

4+ / 4.5 / whatever with very high end weapon(s) / sensors to relevant along with kinematic performance par excellence 

Just open source on how the other side is trying to play to their strengths and illustrative of this for the discussion

The Russians never boast or exaggerate (/s) but decrementing these figures by 20-30% they still have capability in the modern high end fight matched up with an advanced R-77M or K-100.

41 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Clark, we've been diverting acquisition money from now capabilities to put towards the new hotness that's just around the corner for years.  The result is we don't have enough capacity in the now column.

No argument again but it is ever changing ratio that takes common sense, data and professionals not easily influenced unduly by the MIC or ill informed politicians.

Spend a lot for today and little for tomorrow?  Sure when the barbarians are at the gates.

Spend some for today and some for tomorrow?  Sure when we've got them pushed back and have some breathing room.

The problem is we don't have strategy, we have knee jerk reactions to the crisis du jour and we end up wasting our resources.

Here's a strategy:

Accquire an appropriate amount of low end inexpensive to operate systems in low threat long term operations so I still accomplish my mission and greatly lower my costs of executing them.

Take my savings and build a modern force with a mix of systems, High-Medium-Lower, but all relevant and modern to fight against peer and near-peer foes.

Here's our strategy apparently:

Buy only high end systems, act like we need to use only high end systems in low intensity conflicts.  Set the requirements so high that the high end systems get more expensive and are years behind schedule and never get bought in the amounts we set our long term force structure plans for then keep the legacy systems going even as they get more expensive and less relevant.  After all that go ask for more money and promise you'll have it all fixed next year.

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

Restart on thread.

RT so caveat emptor but an interesting idea of a super interceptor and taking aerial warfare to sub-orbital:

https://alert5.com/2017/08/25/mig-41-mach-4-optionally-piloted-operate-in-space/

and another article on a "MiG 41"

https://russiafeed.com/russia-working-ultra-high-speed-mig-fighter-aircraft-capable-spaceflight/

[Seriously]

10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Restart on thread.

RT so caveat emptor but an interesting idea of a super interceptor and taking aerial warfare to sub-orbital:

https://alert5.com/2017/08/25/mig-41-mach-4-optionally-piloted-operate-in-space/

and another article on a "MiG 41"

https://russiafeed.com/russia-working-ultra-high-speed-mig-fighter-aircraft-capable-spaceflight/

 

Ah the ultra high fast flyer. DCA red air just got a whole lot more fun. 

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, Seriously said:

Ah the ultra high fast flyer. DCA red air just got a whole lot more fun. 

Any value in the US developing a like platform?  

[VMFA187]

Looks like all my time-to-stern WEZ gouge just went out the window.

[Clark Griswold]

10 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Looks like all my time-to-stern WEZ gouge just went out the window.

Maybe but I doubt they (Russians) will actually build this X-wing as it will cost a crap ton of rubles and unless oil goes up another $50 a barrel, I doubt they have the money to build a truly new platform.  Now a big upgrade to the MiG-31, maybe...  

They're still behind the 8 ball on the Su-57 and they are way down the line on developing that platform and need to follow thru.